Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1201 | control, N = 601 | treatment, N = 601 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 118 | 50.72 ± 13.00 (25 - 74) | 50.56 ± 12.99 (25 - 74) | 50.87 ± 13.11 (28 - 73) | 0.896 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 120 | >0.999 | |||
f | 92 (77%) | 46 (77%) | 46 (77%) | ||
m | 28 (23%) | 14 (23%) | 14 (23%) | ||
occupation | 120 | 0.626 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.7%) | 2 (3.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 14 (12%) | 7 (12%) | 7 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 11 (9.2%) | 5 (8.3%) | 6 (10%) | ||
other | 2 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.3%) | ||
part_time | 20 (17%) | 9 (15%) | 11 (18%) | ||
retired | 34 (28%) | 16 (27%) | 18 (30%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (3.3%) | 2 (3.3%) | 2 (3.3%) | ||
student | 2 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
unemploy | 29 (24%) | 18 (30%) | 11 (18%) | ||
marital | 120 | 0.890 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
divore | 11 (9.2%) | 7 (12%) | 4 (6.7%) | ||
in_relationship | 3 (2.5%) | 2 (3.3%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
married | 32 (27%) | 16 (27%) | 16 (27%) | ||
none | 63 (52%) | 30 (50%) | 33 (55%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.5%) | 2 (3.3%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
widow | 7 (5.8%) | 3 (5.0%) | 4 (6.7%) | ||
edu | 120 | 0.407 | |||
bachelor | 27 (22%) | 10 (17%) | 17 (28%) | ||
diploma | 23 (19%) | 15 (25%) | 8 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (2.5%) | 2 (3.3%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
postgraduate | 11 (9.2%) | 5 (8.3%) | 6 (10%) | ||
primary | 8 (6.7%) | 2 (3.3%) | 6 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 15 (12%) | 8 (13%) | 7 (12%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 28 (23%) | 16 (27%) | 12 (20%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.3%) | 3 (5.0%) | ||
fam_income | 120 | 0.963 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (5.0%) | 2 (3.3%) | 4 (6.7%) | ||
12001_14000 | 6 (5.0%) | 3 (5.0%) | 3 (5.0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 6 (5.0%) | 2 (3.3%) | 4 (6.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (2.5%) | 1 (1.7%) | 2 (3.3%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (3.3%) | 3 (5.0%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
20001_above | 22 (18%) | 12 (20%) | 10 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 18 (15%) | 10 (17%) | 8 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 12 (10%) | 5 (8.3%) | 7 (12%) | ||
6001_8000 | 10 (8.3%) | 6 (10%) | 4 (6.7%) | ||
8001_10000 | 9 (7.5%) | 4 (6.7%) | 5 (8.3%) | ||
below_2000 | 24 (20%) | 12 (20%) | 12 (20%) | ||
medication | 120 | 107 (89%) | 54 (90%) | 53 (88%) | 0.769 |
onset_duration | 118 | 15.21 ± 10.39 (0 - 56) | 16.27 ± 11.33 (1 - 56) | 14.10 ± 9.28 (0 - 35) | 0.258 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 116 | 35.63 ± 14.54 (10 - 65) | 34.07 ± 13.22 (10 - 61) | 37.18 ± 15.71 (14 - 65) | 0.250 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1201 | control, N = 601 | treatment, N = 601 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 120 | 3.17 ± 1.19 (1 - 5) | 3.28 ± 1.25 (1 - 5) | 3.05 ± 1.13 (1 - 5) | 0.285 |
recovery_stage_b | 120 | 17.92 ± 2.68 (9 - 24) | 17.92 ± 2.70 (9 - 23) | 17.93 ± 2.69 (13 - 24) | 0.973 |
ras_confidence | 120 | 30.11 ± 4.97 (18 - 45) | 29.87 ± 4.35 (19 - 40) | 30.35 ± 5.56 (18 - 45) | 0.597 |
ras_willingness | 120 | 11.88 ± 2.10 (5 - 15) | 11.77 ± 2.04 (5 - 15) | 12.00 ± 2.16 (7 - 15) | 0.545 |
ras_goal | 120 | 17.38 ± 3.11 (11 - 25) | 17.33 ± 2.82 (12 - 24) | 17.42 ± 3.41 (11 - 25) | 0.884 |
ras_reliance | 120 | 13.34 ± 2.87 (7 - 20) | 13.15 ± 2.67 (8 - 18) | 13.53 ± 3.07 (7 - 20) | 0.467 |
ras_domination | 120 | 9.96 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 10.20 ± 2.38 (3 - 15) | 9.72 ± 2.41 (3 - 15) | 0.272 |
symptom | 120 | 29.98 ± 9.54 (14 - 56) | 30.07 ± 9.63 (14 - 55) | 29.88 ± 9.54 (15 - 56) | 0.917 |
slof_work | 120 | 22.38 ± 4.76 (10 - 30) | 22.53 ± 4.30 (13 - 30) | 22.23 ± 5.21 (10 - 30) | 0.731 |
slof_relationship | 120 | 25.39 ± 5.90 (11 - 35) | 24.85 ± 5.65 (13 - 35) | 25.93 ± 6.13 (11 - 35) | 0.316 |
satisfaction | 120 | 20.73 ± 7.06 (5 - 35) | 19.98 ± 6.68 (5 - 33) | 21.47 ± 7.41 (5 - 35) | 0.252 |
mhc_emotional | 120 | 11.12 ± 3.83 (3 - 18) | 10.83 ± 3.69 (3 - 17) | 11.40 ± 3.98 (4 - 18) | 0.420 |
mhc_social | 120 | 15.13 ± 5.55 (5 - 30) | 15.10 ± 5.56 (7 - 30) | 15.17 ± 5.59 (5 - 29) | 0.948 |
mhc_psychological | 120 | 21.99 ± 6.40 (6 - 36) | 21.75 ± 5.87 (9 - 36) | 22.23 ± 6.94 (6 - 36) | 0.681 |
resilisnce | 120 | 16.66 ± 4.70 (6 - 30) | 16.08 ± 4.26 (6 - 24) | 17.23 ± 5.07 (7 - 30) | 0.181 |
social_provision | 120 | 13.71 ± 2.85 (5 - 20) | 13.28 ± 2.41 (8 - 20) | 14.13 ± 3.20 (5 - 20) | 0.103 |
els_value_living | 120 | 17.02 ± 3.05 (5 - 25) | 16.68 ± 2.66 (8 - 22) | 17.35 ± 3.38 (5 - 25) | 0.233 |
els_life_fulfill | 120 | 12.80 ± 3.41 (4 - 20) | 12.28 ± 3.23 (5 - 19) | 13.32 ± 3.53 (4 - 20) | 0.097 |
els | 120 | 29.82 ± 5.91 (9 - 45) | 28.97 ± 5.14 (17 - 38) | 30.67 ± 6.53 (9 - 45) | 0.116 |
social_connect | 120 | 26.44 ± 9.30 (8 - 48) | 27.35 ± 8.76 (8 - 45) | 25.53 ± 9.80 (8 - 48) | 0.286 |
shs_agency | 120 | 14.38 ± 5.11 (3 - 24) | 13.97 ± 4.67 (3 - 21) | 14.80 ± 5.52 (3 - 24) | 0.374 |
shs_pathway | 120 | 16.27 ± 4.00 (4 - 24) | 16.02 ± 3.74 (8 - 24) | 16.53 ± 4.25 (4 - 24) | 0.481 |
shs | 120 | 30.66 ± 8.71 (7 - 48) | 29.98 ± 8.06 (13 - 45) | 31.33 ± 9.33 (7 - 48) | 0.398 |
esteem | 120 | 12.60 ± 1.67 (10 - 20) | 12.72 ± 1.62 (10 - 18) | 12.48 ± 1.72 (10 - 20) | 0.446 |
mlq_search | 120 | 14.82 ± 3.56 (3 - 21) | 14.75 ± 3.29 (6 - 21) | 14.88 ± 3.83 (3 - 21) | 0.838 |
mlq_presence | 120 | 13.44 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.40 ± 3.81 (5 - 21) | 13.48 ± 4.70 (3 - 21) | 0.915 |
mlq | 120 | 28.26 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 28.15 ± 6.08 (12 - 40) | 28.37 ± 7.78 (6 - 42) | 0.865 |
empower | 120 | 19.27 ± 4.40 (6 - 30) | 18.92 ± 4.19 (11 - 30) | 19.63 ± 4.60 (6 - 30) | 0.374 |
ismi_resistance | 120 | 14.61 ± 2.63 (5 - 20) | 14.55 ± 2.22 (10 - 20) | 14.67 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 0.809 |
ismi_discrimation | 120 | 11.42 ± 3.19 (5 - 20) | 11.97 ± 3.08 (5 - 20) | 10.87 ± 3.23 (5 - 20) | 0.059 |
sss_affective | 120 | 9.93 ± 3.57 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.48 (3 - 18) | 9.77 ± 3.67 (3 - 18) | 0.611 |
sss_behavior | 120 | 9.60 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 9.95 ± 3.91 (3 - 18) | 9.25 ± 3.67 (3 - 18) | 0.314 |
sss_cognitive | 120 | 8.07 ± 3.67 (3 - 18) | 8.25 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 7.88 ± 3.61 (3 - 18) | 0.587 |
sss | 120 | 27.60 ± 10.14 (9 - 54) | 28.30 ± 10.17 (9 - 54) | 26.90 ± 10.15 (9 - 54) | 0.452 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.28 | 0.150 | 2.99, 3.58 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.233 | 0.212 | -0.648, 0.181 | 0.272 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.046 | 0.239 | -0.422, 0.514 | 0.847 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.506 | 0.340 | -0.161, 1.17 | 0.141 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.362 | 17.2, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.017 | 0.512 | -0.986, 1.02 | 0.974 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.313 | 0.541 | -1.37, 0.747 | 0.565 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.799 | 0.771 | -0.712, 2.31 | 0.303 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 0.656 | 28.6, 31.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.483 | 0.928 | -1.34, 2.30 | 0.603 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.758 | 0.754 | -0.719, 2.24 | 0.318 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.02 | 1.075 | -1.09, 3.13 | 0.346 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.271 | 11.2, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.233 | 0.384 | -0.518, 0.985 | 0.544 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.614 | 0.302 | -1.20, -0.023 | 0.046 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.799 | 0.430 | -0.044, 1.64 | 0.068 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.3 | 0.413 | 16.5, 18.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.083 | 0.585 | -1.06, 1.23 | 0.887 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.437 | 0.501 | -1.42, 0.545 | 0.387 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.63 | 0.715 | 0.227, 3.03 | 0.026 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.370 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.383 | 0.523 | -0.642, 1.41 | 0.465 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.348 | 0.406 | -0.447, 1.14 | 0.394 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.00 | 0.579 | -0.134, 2.13 | 0.089 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.303 | 9.61, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.483 | 0.428 | -1.32, 0.356 | 0.261 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.255 | 0.430 | -1.10, 0.588 | 0.555 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.33 | 0.613 | 0.130, 2.53 | 0.034 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.1 | 1.234 | 27.6, 32.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.183 | 1.745 | -3.60, 3.24 | 0.916 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.144 | 1.094 | -2.29, 2.00 | 0.896 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.41 | 1.562 | -4.47, 1.66 | 0.372 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.613 | 21.3, 23.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.300 | 0.867 | -2.00, 1.40 | 0.730 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.222 | 0.657 | -1.51, 1.07 | 0.737 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.321 | 0.937 | -1.52, 2.16 | 0.733 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.9 | 0.756 | 23.4, 26.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 1.069 | -1.01, 3.18 | 0.313 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.13 | 0.774 | -2.64, 0.392 | 0.151 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.80 | 1.104 | -0.361, 3.97 | 0.108 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 20.0 | 0.919 | 18.2, 21.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.48 | 1.300 | -1.06, 4.03 | 0.256 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.595 | 1.074 | -1.51, 2.70 | 0.582 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.460 | 1.532 | -2.54, 3.46 | 0.765 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.8 | 0.490 | 9.87, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.567 | 0.692 | -0.790, 1.92 | 0.415 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.349 | 0.505 | -0.642, 1.34 | 0.493 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.218 | 0.721 | -1.63, 1.20 | 0.764 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.739 | 13.7, 16.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.067 | 1.045 | -1.98, 2.11 | 0.949 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.608 | 0.877 | -1.11, 2.33 | 0.491 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.292 | 1.251 | -2.74, 2.16 | 0.816 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.856 | 20.1, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.483 | 1.211 | -1.89, 2.86 | 0.690 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.714 | 0.989 | -1.23, 2.65 | 0.473 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.048 | 1.411 | -2.81, 2.72 | 0.973 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.592 | 14.9, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.15 | 0.837 | -0.490, 2.79 | 0.172 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.200 | 0.716 | -1.20, 1.60 | 0.781 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.35 | 1.021 | -0.652, 3.35 | 0.191 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.371 | 12.6, 14.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.850 | 0.525 | -0.179, 1.88 | 0.108 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.587 | 0.470 | -1.51, 0.334 | 0.216 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.718 | 0.670 | -0.596, 2.03 | 0.288 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.401 | 15.9, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.667 | 0.567 | -0.444, 1.78 | 0.241 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.233 | 0.482 | -0.712, 1.18 | 0.631 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.297 | 0.688 | -1.05, 1.65 | 0.667 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.431 | 11.4, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 0.609 | -0.161, 2.23 | 0.092 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.560 | 0.411 | -0.246, 1.37 | 0.179 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.244 | 0.587 | -1.39, 0.906 | 0.679 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 0.764 | 27.5, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.70 | 1.080 | -0.417, 3.82 | 0.118 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.771 | 0.750 | -0.699, 2.24 | 0.308 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.058 | 1.070 | -2.04, 2.16 | 0.957 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.3 | 1.215 | 25.0, 29.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.82 | 1.718 | -5.18, 1.55 | 0.292 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 1.218 | -1.22, 3.55 | 0.342 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.53 | 1.737 | -6.94, -0.129 | 0.046 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.0 | 0.658 | 12.7, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.833 | 0.930 | -0.990, 2.66 | 0.372 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.079 | 0.683 | -1.26, 1.42 | 0.908 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.789 | 0.975 | -1.12, 2.70 | 0.422 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.512 | 15.0, 17.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.517 | 0.724 | -0.902, 1.94 | 0.477 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.126 | 0.528 | -0.909, 1.16 | 0.812 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.006 | 0.754 | -1.47, 1.48 | 0.994 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 30.0 | 1.116 | 27.8, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.35 | 1.578 | -1.74, 4.44 | 0.394 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.210 | 1.109 | -1.96, 2.38 | 0.850 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.774 | 1.582 | -2.33, 3.88 | 0.627 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.201 | 12.3, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.233 | 0.284 | -0.789, 0.323 | 0.412 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.004 | 0.309 | -0.602, 0.611 | 0.989 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.226 | 0.441 | -0.639, 1.09 | 0.612 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.453 | 13.9, 15.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.133 | 0.640 | -1.12, 1.39 | 0.835 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.141 | 0.602 | -1.04, 1.32 | 0.816 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.144 | 0.859 | -1.83, 1.54 | 0.868 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.545 | 12.3, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.083 | 0.771 | -1.43, 1.60 | 0.914 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.240 | 0.638 | -1.01, 1.49 | 0.708 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.109 | 0.910 | -1.67, 1.89 | 0.905 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 0.899 | 26.4, 29.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.217 | 1.272 | -2.28, 2.71 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.392 | 1.098 | -1.76, 2.55 | 0.722 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.029 | 1.567 | -3.10, 3.04 | 0.985 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.567 | 17.8, 20.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.717 | 0.802 | -0.856, 2.29 | 0.373 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.186 | 0.553 | -0.898, 1.27 | 0.738 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.460 | 0.790 | -2.01, 1.09 | 0.563 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.332 | 13.9, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.117 | 0.470 | -0.804, 1.04 | 0.804 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.053 | 0.460 | -0.955, 0.849 | 0.909 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.508 | 0.656 | -0.779, 1.79 | 0.442 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.410 | 11.2, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.10 | 0.580 | -2.24, 0.037 | 0.060 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.355 | 0.462 | -1.26, 0.550 | 0.445 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.387 | 0.659 | -0.905, 1.68 | 0.559 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.454 | 9.21, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.333 | 0.642 | -1.59, 0.925 | 0.604 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.139 | 0.499 | -0.840, 1.12 | 0.781 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.18 | 0.712 | -2.57, 0.218 | 0.103 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.481 | 9.01, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.700 | 0.680 | -2.03, 0.633 | 0.305 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.032 | 0.540 | -1.09, 1.03 | 0.953 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.653 | 0.770 | -2.16, 0.857 | 0.400 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.25 | 0.470 | 7.33, 9.17 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.367 | 0.665 | -1.67, 0.937 | 0.582 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.703 | 0.523 | -0.322, 1.73 | 0.184 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.32 | 0.747 | -2.79, 0.140 | 0.081 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 1.298 | 25.8, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.40 | 1.836 | -5.00, 2.20 | 0.447 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.760 | 1.325 | -1.84, 3.36 | 0.568 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.03 | 1.891 | -6.73, 0.680 | 0.115 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.28 (95% CI [2.99, 3.58], t(167) = 21.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.18], t(167) = -1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51], t(167) = 0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.17], t(167) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.92 (95% CI [17.21, 18.63], t(167) = 49.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.02], t(167) = 0.03, p = 0.974; Std. beta = 5.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.75], t(167) = -0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.31], t(167) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.87 (95% CI [28.58, 31.15], t(167) = 45.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.34, 2.30], t(167) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.24], t(167) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.09, 3.13], t(167) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.77 (95% CI [11.24, 12.30], t(167) = 43.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.99], t(167) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.02], t(167) = -2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.64], t(167) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.52, 18.14], t(167) = 41.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.23], t(167) = 0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.55], t(167) = -0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [0.23, 3.03], t(167) = 2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.07, 0.95])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.42, 13.88], t(167) = 35.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.41], t(167) = 0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.14], t(167) = 0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.13], t(167) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.20 (95% CI [9.61, 10.79], t(167) = 33.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.36], t(167) = -1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.59], t(167) = -0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [0.13, 2.53], t(167) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.06, 1.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.07 (95% CI [27.65, 32.48], t(167) = 24.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-3.60, 3.24], t(167) = -0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.29, 2.00], t(167) = -0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.66], t(167) = -0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.33e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.33, 23.73], t(167) = 36.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-2.00, 1.40], t(167) = -0.35, p = 0.729; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.07], t(167) = -0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.16], t(167) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.85 (95% CI [23.37, 26.33], t(167) = 32.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.01, 3.18], t(167) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.64, 0.39], t(167) = -1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [-0.36, 3.97], t(167) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.98 (95% CI [18.18, 21.78], t(167) = 21.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [-1.06, 4.03], t(167) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.70], t(167) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-2.54, 3.46], t(167) = 0.30, p = 0.764; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.83 (95% CI [9.87, 11.79], t(167) = 22.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.92], t(167) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.34], t(167) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.20], t(167) = -0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.10 (95% CI [13.65, 16.55], t(167) = 20.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.98, 2.11], t(167) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.33], t(167) = 0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.74, 2.16], t(167) = -0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.75 (95% CI [20.07, 23.43], t(167) = 25.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.89, 2.86], t(167) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.65], t(167) = 0.72, p = 0.471; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-2.81, 2.72], t(167) = -0.03, p = 0.973; Std. beta = -7.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.08 (95% CI [14.92, 17.24], t(167) = 27.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.79], t(167) = 1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.60], t(167) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.65, 3.35], t(167) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.28 (95% CI [12.56, 14.01], t(167) = 35.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.88], t(167) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.33], t(167) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.03], t(167) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.68 (95% CI [15.90, 17.47], t(167) = 41.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.78], t(167) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.18], t(167) = 0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.65], t(167) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.28 (95% CI [11.44, 13.13], t(167) = 28.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.23], t(167) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.37], t(167) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.91], t(167) = -0.42, p = 0.678; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.97 (95% CI [27.47, 30.46], t(167) = 37.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.82], t(167) = 1.57, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.24], t(167) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.16], t(167) = 0.05, p = 0.957; Std. beta = 9.84e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.35 (95% CI [24.97, 29.73], t(167) = 22.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-5.18, 1.55], t(167) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.55], t(167) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.53, 95% CI [-6.94, -0.13], t(167) = -2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.73, -0.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [12.68, 15.26], t(167) = 21.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.99, 2.66], t(167) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.42], t(167) = 0.12, p = 0.908; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.70], t(167) = 0.81, p = 0.418; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [15.01, 17.02], t(167) = 31.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.94], t(167) = 0.71, p = 0.475; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.16], t(167) = 0.24, p = 0.812; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 5.61e-03, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.48], t(167) = 7.44e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = 1.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.98 (95% CI [27.80, 32.17], t(167) = 26.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-1.74, 4.44], t(167) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.96, 2.38], t(167) = 0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.33, 3.88], t(167) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.72 (95% CI [12.32, 13.11], t(167) = 63.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.32], t(167) = -0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 4.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.61], t(167) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 2.91e-03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.09], t(167) = 0.51, p = 0.609; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.35e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.75 (95% CI [13.86, 15.64], t(167) = 32.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.39], t(167) = 0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.32], t(167) = 0.23, p = 0.815; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.83, 1.54], t(167) = -0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.40 (95% CI [12.33, 14.47], t(167) = 24.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.60], t(167) = 0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.49], t(167) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.89], t(167) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.46e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [26.39, 29.91], t(167) = 31.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-2.28, 2.71], t(167) = 0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.55], t(167) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-3.10, 3.04], t(167) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -4.25e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.92 (95% CI [17.80, 20.03], t(167) = 33.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.29], t(167) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.27], t(167) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.01, 1.09], t(167) = -0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.55 (95% CI [13.90, 15.20], t(167) = 43.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.04], t(167) = 0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.85], t(167) = -0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.79], t(167) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.97 (95% CI [11.16, 12.77], t(167) = 29.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.24, 0.04], t(167) = -1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.01])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.26, 0.55], t(167) = -0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.68], t(167) = 0.59, p = 0.557; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.10 (95% CI [9.21, 10.99], t(167) = 22.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.92], t(167) = -0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.12], t(167) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.22], t(167) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.01, 10.89], t(167) = 20.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.63], t(167) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.03], t(167) = -0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = -8.42e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.86], t(167) = -0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.25 (95% CI [7.33, 9.17], t(167) = 17.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.67, 0.94], t(167) = -0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.73], t(167) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.14], t(167) = -1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.30 (95% CI [25.76, 30.84], t(167) = 21.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-5.00, 2.20], t(167) = -0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.84, 3.36], t(167) = 0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.03, 95% CI [-6.73, 0.68], t(167) = -1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 544.906 | 554.366 | -269.453 | 538.906 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 545.390 | 564.309 | -266.695 | 533.390 | 5.517 | 3 | 0.138 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 841.660 | 851.120 | -417.830 | 835.660 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 846.280 | 865.200 | -417.140 | 834.280 | 1.379 | 3 | 0.710 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,030.330 | 1,039.789 | -512.165 | 1,024.330 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,029.346 | 1,048.266 | -508.673 | 1,017.346 | 6.983 | 3 | 0.072 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 720.351 | 729.811 | -357.176 | 714.351 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 720.584 | 739.504 | -354.292 | 708.584 | 5.767 | 3 | 0.124 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 875.359 | 884.819 | -434.679 | 869.359 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 874.520 | 893.440 | -431.260 | 862.520 | 6.839 | 3 | 0.077 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 832.979 | 842.439 | -413.490 | 826.979 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 826.632 | 845.552 | -407.316 | 814.632 | 12.347 | 3 | 0.006 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 780.975 | 790.435 | -387.488 | 774.975 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 780.722 | 799.641 | -384.361 | 768.722 | 6.254 | 3 | 0.100 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,218.521 | 1,227.981 | -606.260 | 1,212.521 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,222.459 | 1,241.379 | -605.230 | 1,210.459 | 2.062 | 3 | 0.560 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 993.330 | 1,002.790 | -493.665 | 987.330 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 999.117 | 1,018.037 | -493.558 | 987.117 | 0.213 | 3 | 0.975 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,066.257 | 1,075.717 | -530.129 | 1,060.257 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,067.262 | 1,086.182 | -527.631 | 1,055.262 | 4.995 | 3 | 0.172 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,144.481 | 1,153.941 | -569.240 | 1,138.481 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,147.579 | 1,166.498 | -567.789 | 1,135.579 | 2.902 | 3 | 0.407 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 912.846 | 922.306 | -453.423 | 906.846 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 917.696 | 936.616 | -452.848 | 905.696 | 1.150 | 3 | 0.765 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,068.090 | 1,077.550 | -531.045 | 1,062.090 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,073.467 | 1,092.387 | -530.733 | 1,061.467 | 0.623 | 3 | 0.891 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,117.120 | 1,126.579 | -555.560 | 1,111.120 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,121.974 | 1,140.894 | -554.987 | 1,109.974 | 1.146 | 3 | 0.766 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,000.365 | 1,009.825 | -497.183 | 994.365 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 998.453 | 1,017.373 | -493.226 | 986.453 | 7.912 | 3 | 0.048 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 841.306 | 850.766 | -417.653 | 835.306 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 841.355 | 860.275 | -414.678 | 829.355 | 5.951 | 3 | 0.114 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 860.299 | 869.759 | -427.150 | 854.299 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 863.003 | 881.922 | -425.501 | 851.003 | 3.296 | 3 | 0.348 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 864.837 | 874.296 | -429.418 | 858.837 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 865.676 | 884.596 | -426.838 | 853.676 | 5.161 | 3 | 0.160 |
els | null | 3 | 1,065.605 | 1,075.065 | -529.802 | 1,059.605 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,066.680 | 1,085.599 | -527.340 | 1,054.680 | 4.925 | 3 | 0.177 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,230.392 | 1,239.852 | -612.196 | 1,224.392 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,229.325 | 1,248.245 | -608.662 | 1,217.325 | 7.067 | 3 | 0.070 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,017.444 | 1,026.904 | -505.722 | 1,011.444 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,020.548 | 1,039.468 | -504.274 | 1,008.548 | 2.896 | 3 | 0.408 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 927.696 | 937.156 | -460.848 | 921.696 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 933.029 | 951.949 | -460.514 | 921.029 | 0.667 | 3 | 0.881 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,194.871 | 1,204.331 | -594.436 | 1,188.871 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,199.051 | 1,217.971 | -593.526 | 1,187.051 | 1.820 | 3 | 0.611 |
esteem | null | 3 | 639.493 | 648.953 | -316.746 | 633.493 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 644.479 | 663.399 | -316.239 | 632.479 | 1.014 | 3 | 0.798 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 908.462 | 917.921 | -451.231 | 902.462 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 914.379 | 933.299 | -451.190 | 902.379 | 0.082 | 3 | 0.994 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 961.570 | 971.030 | -477.785 | 955.570 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 967.104 | 986.023 | -477.552 | 955.104 | 0.466 | 3 | 0.926 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,138.396 | 1,147.856 | -566.198 | 1,132.396 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,144.126 | 1,163.045 | -566.063 | 1,132.126 | 0.270 | 3 | 0.966 |
empower | null | 3 | 958.088 | 967.548 | -476.044 | 952.088 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 963.112 | 982.032 | -475.556 | 951.112 | 0.976 | 3 | 0.807 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 806.007 | 815.467 | -400.003 | 800.007 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 810.707 | 829.626 | -399.353 | 798.707 | 1.300 | 3 | 0.729 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 862.890 | 872.350 | -428.445 | 856.890 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 865.016 | 883.936 | -426.508 | 853.016 | 3.874 | 3 | 0.275 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 897.005 | 906.465 | -445.502 | 891.005 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 897.715 | 916.635 | -442.857 | 885.715 | 5.290 | 3 | 0.152 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 916.881 | 926.341 | -455.440 | 910.881 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 919.585 | 938.504 | -453.792 | 907.585 | 3.296 | 3 | 0.348 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 909.525 | 918.985 | -451.763 | 903.525 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 911.166 | 930.086 | -449.583 | 899.166 | 4.359 | 3 | 0.225 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,252.727 | 1,262.187 | -623.363 | 1,246.727 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,254.120 | 1,273.039 | -621.060 | 1,242.120 | 4.607 | 3 | 0.203 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 60 | 3.28 ± 1.16 | 60 | 3.05 ± 1.16 | 0.272 | 0.238 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 27 | 3.33 ± 1.14 | -0.047 | 26 | 3.60 ± 1.14 | -0.564 | 0.387 | -0.278 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 60 | 17.92 ± 2.80 | 60 | 17.93 ± 2.80 | 0.974 | -0.008 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 27 | 17.60 ± 2.70 | 0.144 | 26 | 18.42 ± 2.70 | -0.223 | 0.273 | -0.375 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 60 | 29.87 ± 5.08 | 60 | 30.35 ± 5.08 | 0.603 | -0.167 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 27 | 30.63 ± 4.42 | -0.261 | 26 | 32.13 ± 4.40 | -0.613 | 0.216 | -0.519 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 60 | 11.77 ± 2.10 | 60 | 12.00 ± 2.10 | 0.544 | -0.202 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 27 | 11.15 ± 1.80 | 0.530 | 26 | 12.19 ± 1.80 | -0.160 | 0.038 | -0.892 |
ras_goal | 1st | 60 | 17.33 ± 3.20 | 60 | 17.42 ± 3.20 | 0.887 | -0.043 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 27 | 16.90 ± 2.84 | 0.225 | 26 | 18.61 ± 2.83 | -0.613 | 0.029 | -0.881 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 60 | 13.15 ± 2.87 | 60 | 13.53 ± 2.87 | 0.465 | -0.247 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 27 | 13.50 ± 2.45 | -0.224 | 26 | 14.88 ± 2.44 | -0.867 | 0.041 | -0.890 |
ras_domination | 1st | 60 | 10.20 ± 2.35 | 60 | 9.72 ± 2.35 | 0.261 | 0.283 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 27 | 9.94 ± 2.21 | 0.149 | 26 | 10.79 ± 2.21 | -0.630 | 0.164 | -0.496 |
symptom | 1st | 60 | 30.07 ± 9.56 | 60 | 29.88 ± 9.56 | 0.916 | 0.044 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 27 | 29.92 ± 7.63 | 0.035 | 26 | 28.33 ± 7.57 | 0.375 | 0.448 | 0.385 |
slof_work | 1st | 60 | 22.53 ± 4.75 | 60 | 22.23 ± 4.75 | 0.730 | 0.119 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 27 | 22.31 ± 4.03 | 0.088 | 26 | 22.33 ± 4.00 | -0.040 | 0.985 | -0.008 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 60 | 24.85 ± 5.86 | 60 | 25.93 ± 5.86 | 0.313 | -0.367 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 27 | 23.72 ± 4.89 | 0.382 | 26 | 26.61 ± 4.86 | -0.230 | 0.032 | -0.979 |
satisfaction | 1st | 60 | 19.98 ± 7.12 | 60 | 21.47 ± 7.12 | 0.256 | -0.358 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 27 | 20.58 ± 6.23 | -0.143 | 26 | 22.52 ± 6.20 | -0.255 | 0.257 | -0.469 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 60 | 10.83 ± 3.79 | 60 | 11.40 ± 3.79 | 0.415 | -0.294 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 27 | 11.18 ± 3.17 | -0.181 | 26 | 11.53 ± 3.15 | -0.068 | 0.689 | -0.181 |
mhc_social | 1st | 60 | 15.10 ± 5.72 | 60 | 15.17 ± 5.72 | 0.949 | -0.020 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 27 | 15.71 ± 5.04 | -0.179 | 26 | 15.48 ± 5.01 | -0.093 | 0.871 | 0.066 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 60 | 21.75 ± 6.63 | 60 | 22.23 ± 6.63 | 0.690 | -0.127 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 27 | 22.46 ± 5.78 | -0.187 | 26 | 22.90 ± 5.75 | -0.175 | 0.784 | -0.114 |
resilisnce | 1st | 60 | 16.08 ± 4.58 | 60 | 17.23 ± 4.58 | 0.172 | -0.415 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 27 | 16.28 ± 4.06 | -0.072 | 26 | 18.78 ± 4.05 | -0.559 | 0.026 | -0.901 |
social_provision | 1st | 60 | 13.28 ± 2.88 | 60 | 14.13 ± 2.88 | 0.108 | -0.464 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 27 | 12.70 ± 2.59 | 0.321 | 26 | 14.26 ± 2.59 | -0.071 | 0.029 | -0.856 |
els_value_living | 1st | 60 | 16.68 ± 3.10 | 60 | 17.35 ± 3.10 | 0.241 | -0.357 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 27 | 16.92 ± 2.75 | -0.125 | 26 | 17.88 ± 2.73 | -0.284 | 0.202 | -0.516 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 60 | 12.28 ± 3.34 | 60 | 13.32 ± 3.34 | 0.092 | -0.663 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 27 | 12.84 ± 2.72 | -0.359 | 26 | 13.63 ± 2.70 | -0.203 | 0.291 | -0.507 |
els | 1st | 60 | 28.97 ± 5.92 | 60 | 30.67 ± 5.92 | 0.118 | -0.597 | ||
els | 2nd | 27 | 29.74 ± 4.87 | -0.271 | 26 | 31.50 ± 4.84 | -0.291 | 0.189 | -0.617 |
social_connect | 1st | 60 | 27.35 ± 9.41 | 60 | 25.53 ± 9.41 | 0.292 | 0.392 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 27 | 28.52 ± 7.80 | -0.252 | 26 | 23.17 ± 7.75 | 0.511 | 0.013 | 1.156 |
shs_agency | 1st | 60 | 13.97 ± 5.10 | 60 | 14.80 ± 5.10 | 0.372 | -0.320 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 27 | 14.05 ± 4.27 | -0.030 | 26 | 15.67 ± 4.25 | -0.333 | 0.168 | -0.622 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 60 | 16.02 ± 3.96 | 60 | 16.53 ± 3.96 | 0.477 | -0.257 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 27 | 16.14 ± 3.32 | -0.063 | 26 | 16.66 ± 3.30 | -0.065 | 0.566 | -0.259 |
shs | 1st | 60 | 29.98 ± 8.64 | 60 | 31.33 ± 8.64 | 0.394 | -0.320 | ||
shs | 2nd | 27 | 30.19 ± 7.15 | -0.050 | 26 | 32.32 ± 7.10 | -0.234 | 0.279 | -0.504 |
esteem | 1st | 60 | 12.72 ± 1.55 | 60 | 12.48 ± 1.55 | 0.412 | 0.186 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 27 | 12.72 ± 1.51 | -0.004 | 26 | 12.71 ± 1.51 | -0.183 | 0.985 | 0.006 |
mlq_search | 1st | 60 | 14.75 ± 3.51 | 60 | 14.88 ± 3.51 | 0.835 | -0.056 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 27 | 14.89 ± 3.23 | -0.059 | 26 | 14.88 ± 3.22 | 0.001 | 0.991 | 0.004 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 60 | 13.40 ± 4.22 | 60 | 13.48 ± 4.22 | 0.914 | -0.034 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 27 | 13.64 ± 3.70 | -0.098 | 26 | 13.83 ± 3.68 | -0.142 | 0.849 | -0.078 |
mlq | 1st | 60 | 28.15 ± 6.97 | 60 | 28.37 ± 6.97 | 0.865 | -0.051 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 27 | 28.54 ± 6.20 | -0.092 | 26 | 28.73 ± 6.17 | -0.085 | 0.912 | -0.044 |
empower | 1st | 60 | 18.92 ± 4.39 | 60 | 19.63 ± 4.39 | 0.373 | -0.341 | ||
empower | 2nd | 27 | 19.10 ± 3.61 | -0.089 | 26 | 19.36 ± 3.58 | 0.130 | 0.795 | -0.122 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 60 | 14.55 ± 2.57 | 60 | 14.67 ± 2.57 | 0.804 | -0.064 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 27 | 14.50 ± 2.41 | 0.029 | 26 | 15.12 ± 2.40 | -0.250 | 0.346 | -0.343 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 60 | 11.97 ± 3.18 | 60 | 10.87 ± 3.18 | 0.060 | 0.619 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 27 | 11.61 ± 2.74 | 0.200 | 26 | 10.90 ± 2.73 | -0.018 | 0.345 | 0.401 |
sss_affective | 1st | 60 | 10.10 ± 3.52 | 60 | 9.77 ± 3.52 | 0.604 | 0.174 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 27 | 10.24 ± 3.01 | -0.073 | 26 | 8.73 ± 2.99 | 0.543 | 0.068 | 0.790 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 60 | 9.95 ± 3.72 | 60 | 9.25 ± 3.72 | 0.305 | 0.338 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 27 | 9.92 ± 3.21 | 0.015 | 26 | 8.57 ± 3.19 | 0.330 | 0.126 | 0.652 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 60 | 8.25 ± 3.64 | 60 | 7.88 ± 3.64 | 0.582 | 0.183 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 27 | 8.95 ± 3.13 | -0.350 | 26 | 7.26 ± 3.11 | 0.309 | 0.051 | 0.841 |
sss | 1st | 60 | 28.30 ± 10.06 | 60 | 26.90 ± 10.06 | 0.447 | 0.277 | ||
sss | 2nd | 27 | 29.06 ± 8.39 | -0.151 | 26 | 24.63 ± 8.33 | 0.449 | 0.056 | 0.877 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(161.25) = -1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.18)
2st
t(164.20) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.89)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(155.06) = 0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.03)
2st
t(161.70) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.28)
ras_confidence
1st
t(137.15) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.32)
2st
t(164.23) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.90)
ras_willingness
1st
t(135.68) = 0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.99)
2st
t(165.18) = 2.09, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.01)
ras_goal
1st
t(139.87) = 0.14, p = 0.887, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.24)
2st
t(162.73) = 2.20, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.17 to 3.25)
ras_reliance
1st
t(135.08) = 0.73, p = 0.465, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.42)
2st
t(165.59) = 2.06, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.71)
ras_domination
1st
t(150.68) = -1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.36)
2st
t(160.82) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.05)
symptom
1st
t(128.38) = -0.11, p = 0.916, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-3.64 to 3.27)
2st
t(169.00) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.71 to 2.53)
slof_work
1st
t(134.17) = -0.35, p = 0.730, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.41)
2st
t(166.21) = 0.02, p = 0.985, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.16 to 2.20)
slof_relationship
1st
t(132.50) = 1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.03 to 3.20)
2st
t(167.34) = 2.16, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.24 to 5.53)
satisfaction
1st
t(137.97) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.09 to 4.05)
2st
t(163.74) = 1.14, p = 0.257, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.43 to 5.31)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(132.79) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.94)
2st
t(167.15) = 0.40, p = 0.689, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.07)
mhc_social
1st
t(138.77) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.13)
2st
t(163.29) = -0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.95 to 2.50)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(137.43) = 0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.91 to 2.88)
2st
t(164.06) = 0.28, p = 0.784, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.69 to 3.56)
resilisnce
1st
t(139.77) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.80)
2st
t(162.78) = 2.24, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.30 to 4.70)
social_provision
1st
t(142.37) = 1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.89)
2st
t(161.71) = 2.20, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.16 to 2.97)
els_value_living
1st
t(139.49) = 1.18, p = 0.241, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.79)
2st
t(162.91) = 1.28, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.45)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(130.29) = 1.70, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.24)
2st
t(168.58) = 1.06, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.26)
els
1st
t(131.14) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.44 to 3.84)
2st
t(168.16) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.88 to 4.39)
social_connect
1st
t(131.78) = -1.06, p = 0.292, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-5.22 to 1.58)
2st
t(167.79) = -2.50, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 1.16, 95% CI (-9.57 to -1.13)
shs_agency
1st
t(133.01) = 0.90, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.01 to 2.67)
2st
t(167.00) = 1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.69 to 3.93)
shs_pathway
1st
t(132.78) = 0.71, p = 0.477, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.95)
2st
t(167.16) = 0.57, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.32)
shs
1st
t(131.51) = 0.86, p = 0.394, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.77 to 4.47)
2st
t(167.95) = 1.09, p = 0.279, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.74 to 5.99)
esteem
1st
t(157.99) = -0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.33)
2st
t(162.71) = -0.02, p = 0.985, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.81)
mlq_search
1st
t(145.67) = 0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.13 to 1.40)
2st
t(160.91) = -0.01, p = 0.991, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.74)
mlq_presence
1st
t(138.03) = 0.11, p = 0.914, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.44 to 1.61)
2st
t(163.70) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.81 to 2.19)
mlq
1st
t(140.30) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.73)
2st
t(162.53) = 0.11, p = 0.912, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-3.17 to 3.54)
empower
1st
t(130.94) = 0.89, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.30)
2st
t(168.27) = 0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.21)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(148.68) = 0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.04)
2st
t(160.70) = 0.95, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.93)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(136.26) = -1.90, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.25 to 0.05)
2st
t(164.80) = -0.95, p = 0.345, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.77)
sss_affective
1st
t(135.23) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.94)
2st
t(165.48) = -1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.14 to 0.12)
sss_behavior
1st
t(136.11) = -1.03, p = 0.305, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.64)
2st
t(164.89) = -1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-3.09 to 0.38)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(135.70) = -0.55, p = 0.582, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.95)
2st
t(165.16) = -1.97, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-3.38 to 0.00)
sss
1st
t(132.40) = -0.76, p = 0.447, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-5.03 to 2.23)
2st
t(167.41) = -1.93, p = 0.056, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-8.96 to 0.11)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(84.68) = 2.26, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.04)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(77.51) = 0.88, p = 0.765, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.59)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(62.85) = 2.31, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.24 to 3.32)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(61.85) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.80)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(64.76) = 2.32, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.21)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(61.45) = 3.25, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.52 to 2.18)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(73.34) = 2.45, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.95)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(57.14) = -1.39, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.79 to 0.69)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(60.84) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.44)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(59.75) = 0.86, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.26)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(63.42) = 0.96, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.14 to 3.25)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(59.94) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.16)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(63.99) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.11)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(63.05) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.69)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(64.69) = 2.12, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.09 to 3.01)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(66.60) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.09)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(64.49) = 1.07, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.51)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(58.33) = 0.75, p = 0.909, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.16)
els
1st vs 2st
t(58.87) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.36)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(59.28) = -1.90, p = 0.124, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-4.86 to 0.12)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(60.08) = 1.24, p = 0.437, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.26)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(59.93) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.21)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(59.11) = 0.87, p = 0.777, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.25)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(80.65) = 0.73, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.86)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(69.14) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.23)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(63.47) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.65)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(65.07) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.61)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(58.74) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.86)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(71.61) = 0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.39)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(62.24) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.98)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(61.55) = -2.04, p = 0.092, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.06 to -0.02)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(62.14) = -1.24, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.42)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(61.87) = -1.16, p = 0.502, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.45)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(59.68) = -1.67, p = 0.199, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-4.98 to 0.44)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(83.41) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.52)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(76.54) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.77)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(62.46) = 1.00, p = 0.641, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.27)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(61.49) = -2.03, p = 0.094, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.22 to -0.01)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(64.30) = -0.87, p = 0.778, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.57)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(61.10) = 0.85, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.16)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(72.54) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.61)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(56.94) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.34 to 2.05)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(60.52) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.10)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(59.46) = -1.45, p = 0.305, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.43)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(63.01) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.56 to 2.75)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(59.65) = 0.69, p = 0.989, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.36)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(63.55) = 0.69, p = 0.986, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.37)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(62.65) = 0.72, p = 0.951, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.70)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(64.23) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.64)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(66.06) = -1.24, p = 0.437, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.36)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(64.04) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.20)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(58.10) = 1.36, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.39)
els
1st vs 2st
t(58.62) = 1.02, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.28)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(59.02) = 0.95, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.61)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(59.78) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.45)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(59.64) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.19)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(58.85) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.02 to 2.44)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(79.55) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.62)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(68.50) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.35)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(63.05) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.52)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(64.60) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.81 to 2.60)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(58.50) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.30)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(70.88) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.87)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(61.87) = -0.77, p = 0.894, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(61.20) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.14)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(61.77) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.05)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(61.51) = 1.34, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.75)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(59.40) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.90 to 3.42)
Plot
